Game day - Bulldogs vs Crows

[GVGjr]

This is the discussion thread for todays game.

Who's you tip to kick the first goal for us? I'll go with Murphy

[BulldogBelle]

I hope that Murphy gets the first goal too. One news article said that he had gastro on Friday and is a doubtful starter for today.

Too much of that magnesium powder and fancy North Fitzroy street foods maybe.

[firstdogonthemoon]

cooney

[Dry Rot]

Will the G better suit McDougall?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Will the G better suit McDougall?

If he works as hard as he did in the pre-season, I'd imagine so. But if he doesn't, he'll get caught out.

MCG's a ground whereby if you're mentally strong and physically fit, you'll perform well. We know Doogs is certainly physically fit, very agile; but has he got the motor? Jury's still out, but today's a good chance for him IMO.

[dog town]

This game is probably as good an indicator as we are likely to get in terms of where we are at and how much we have improved. The crows are a bloody good side and they will be hunting us. We need to lose the tag of being a team that can be shut down with enough pressure. We need to be able to scrap out wins against sides like the crows.

[dog town]

Half Time

Game going exactly as the crows would have wanted. They are working ten times harder than us and we are playing dumb and pretty footy. We need to go longer more often to give them something else to think about. You can see we are trying to lift but we haven't had the execution to reward our improved workrate.

[bulldogtragic]

Continuing the tradition of losing games people expect us to win.

[GVGjr]

What a difference a week makes?
Last week we were disciplined and executed our game plan well and this week Rodney Eade was out coached pure and simple plus a large number of our players made decision errors on a regular basis throughout the game.
In a day famous for the finest chocolates we were more like the cheapest bag of boiled lollies you could buy at NQR.
The Crows executed everything so well and created loose men through the middle that they moved the ball beautifully and made the right decisions throughout the night. As a contrast we over used the ball and often handballed to players in a bad or worse position.

Craig should be lauded for his masterful performance today and the Crows zoned off so well at the kick outs there was no end to end flow that we have been able to do so regularly since Eade arrived. The pressure the Crows put our midfielders under was so consistent during the game what they ended up doing was make our otherwise good decision makers totally ineffective and almost junior league like with the turnovers and the amount of times we fumbled the ball or simply slipped over in a contest.

The zone was so effective that other teams will pick up on that Rocket so you better find a remedy ASAP.

Eade left Griffen in the midfield for way too long which impacted us severely at the centre bounces. Griffen has yet to show that he is capable of playing in the centre square just yet and was more at home in defence.
Minson battled away hard but really wasn’t effective. Darcy probably did slightly more.

The Crows got every one of our defenders on the players they wanted. Every time Gilbee tried to switch off so that he could get further up the field they would simply run him back deep into defence and we would have to switch. Gilbee got plenty of the ball but so did his opponents who converted their chances against him.

The vast majority of players were inept today. It started off in an encouraging way. Power and Eagleton were doing well in the first quarter and we played with a bit of structure but really the Crows were a far superior outfit in every sense.
The 2nd and 3rd quarters belonged to the Crows and in the end the scoreboard actually flattered us.
Harris will return next week but I’m not sure what Eade can do to turn this around. The Crows once again outplayed us and we really do struggle against disciplined outfits.

Thoughts?

[LostDoggy]

What a slap back down to Earth. There wasn't anyone missing from our midfield/forward - so what happened since last week? Not that there is anything wrong with losing, so long as you give it your best - just didn't seem to me that I was watching the best of the Bulldogs tonight. Is it mental immaturity? Way too much hype in the media of late. It's okay for fans to get carried away with the excitement of it all, not so for the players.

It is difficult to believe our skills dropped off in a week- as you said GVGjr, it was like junior league at times. I feel very uncomfortable at the thought of Eade being out-coached. Is that what happened or were our players simply not disciplined enough? Those loose Crows players everywhere were doing my head in - and then our players would kick straight to them.

[GVGjr]

I feel very uncomfortable at the thought of Eade being out-coached. Is that what happened or were our players simply not disciplined enough? Those loose Crows players everywhere were doing my head in - and then our players would kick straight to them.

All the match-ups went the Crows way which is why I think Craig got the better of Eade in a big way.

The way they zoned up for our kick outs made us look indecisive and inept and on top of that it didn't get better at all throughout the game. Eade was unable to find a counter to it and our normal good decision makers and skillful kickers floundered under the pressure.
St Kilda will be looking to implement the same plan next week.

[LostDoggy]

I would like to know how come the Crows could run the ball (apparently) so easily out of our forward 50 and up the ground to their forward 50? Is that because of the way they matched up to our players? Our players seemed to be spectators at times (but I am not too au fait with the technical intricacies of footy). I am trying to work out if we were simply out played by a superior team or whether there was a lack of intensity from our team. I am now very worried about next week. Saints will be looking to redeem themselves also.

[GVGjr]

I would like to know how come the Crows could run the ball (apparently) so easily out of our forward 50 and up the ground to their forward 50? Is that because of the way they matched up to our players? Our players seemed to be spectators at times (but I am not too au fait with the technical intricacies of footy). I am trying to work out if we were simply out played by a superior team or whether there was a lack of intensity from our team. I am now very worried about next week. Saints will be looking to redeem themselves also.


I think it's a combination of a couple of things.
1) We didn't play with the same level of intensity in the forward 50 like we would normally do. Robbins didn't hunt and of them down like he normally would plus there HBF are masters of knowing when to run off their opponent at exactly the right time.
2) They are a very good team that really does match-up well on us. We couldn't free up our prime movers and we couldn't restrict theirs.

Poor Guido. Every time we kicked the ball to him he had to wait under it for what seemed to be an eternity before he would get swamped. It just summed up our game.
Griffen in the midfield just didn't work for us and he was far better when moved to defence. Morris wasn't great tonight and fell down and fumbled a fair bit. McMahon was brilliant at times but coughed up the ball a few times that rebounded quickly and cost us goals. It's a shame because he really did provide us with some sparkling run at times.

[bornadog]

Gia looks very unfit and can hardly run at the moment, surely he isnot carrying an inury into the game?

[GVGjr]

Gia looks very unfit and can hardly run at the moment, surely he isnot carrying an inury into the game?

Thats for the coach and the fitness team to decide. While he was out of sorts, we did him no favors with our passing into the forward 50. It really was 2nd rate.

[BulldogBelle]

What I was a little perplexed about was why was McDougall not placed in the backline in the first 3 quarters, poor Gilbee had a bag kicked on him and clearly was struggling against the height factor. I realise he always plays above his height but today he was absolutely mauled.

[GVGjr]

What I was a little perplexed about was why was McDougall not placed in the backline in the first 3 quarters, poor Gilbee had a bag kicked on him and clearly was struggling against the height factor. I realise he always plays above his height but today he was absolutely mauled.

I thought it would have been worth a shot to try McDougall in defence but Minson adds no value up forward at all so we would have been very small there.

Gilbee got plenty of it early but the constant goals being kicked on him hurt his confidence.
Every time he tried to get to the HBF the Crows forwards would switch dragging him back the the BP.

[bornadog]

A Couple of Observations:

Minsons ruck work, eyes on the man instead of the ball, don't know why?

Cooney - first three quarters some great handle balls to the opposition, what was he thinking?

Aker, gave 200% at times , hope his injury isnot too bad.

Foot passing, and ball skills dissappared today and decison making by lots of players was whoeful.

Overall, the attitude and body language said it all, did the boys read too much of their own publicity during the week, far too many individuals running around and not much team play

Very dissapointing and I feel its two steps backwards after that display.

[BulldogBelle]

Gilbee got plenty of it early but the constant goals being kicked on him hurt his confidence. Every time he tried to get to the HBF the Crows forwards would switch dragging him back the the BP.

Yes, Gilbee did suffer with the confidence side of things. As you said he was being dragged back into the BP thus he really couldn't do much. At that point I kept thinking if Grant and Harris were in the team it might have been a very different story in our defense. Anyways, they will learn from this game and hopefully with Harris's return it will relieve a bit of pressure in our backline.

[southerncross]

Crows fly high (http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfmatchreport/crows-fly-high/2007/04/08/1175970942018.html)



ADELAIDE 4.5 8.10 14.12 16.14 (110)
WESTERN BULLDOGS 4.1 5.2 6.5 11.6 (72)
GOALS: Adelaide: Welsh 4, Bock 4, Stevens 3, Perrie 2, Van Berlo, Bode, Reilly. Western Bulldogs: Higgins 3, Johnson 2, Cooney 2, Murphy, Boyd, Griffen, McDougall.
BEST: Adelaide: McLeod, Bock, Stevens, Goodwin, Edwards, Knights, Reilly. Western Bulldogs: McMahon, Higgins, Hargrave, Cross.
INJURIES: Adelaide: Johncock (ankle). Western Bulldogs: Akermanis (hamstring).
UMPIRES: Grun, Head, Chamberlain.
CROWD: 27,199 at the MCG.
AS THEIR 30th birthdays beckoned, Jason Akermanis and Andrew McLeod both had big disagreements with their clubs, and teammates, last year.
The word "untenable" followed Akermanis and the Brisbane Lions around like a hard tag. He was duly traded, to the club of his choosing, at what was deemed a bargain rate of draft pick No. 34.
McLeod, too, had his conflicts, first with the Crows over a contract, and then a big rift developed with teammate Tyson Edwards. Mediators were called in to deal with the McLeod-Edwards spat, but, unlike Denis Pagan and Barry Mitchell — whom Kofi Annan and Henry Kissinger would struggle to defuse — they found a way to work together.
While Akermanis and the Lions agreed on a quickie divorce, McLeod and Adelaide stuck together, in the hope that the turbulence — in which their wives also were caught up in — would cease.
When the Crows made an unexpected mess of the Bulldogs last night — and 10 goals would have been a truer margin than the eventual 38 points — one gained an insight into why one superstar remained and another left.
McLeod is 30, but he has retained that burst of explosive acceleration that, in combination with his vision and skills, made him so exceptional. Coach Neil Craig has placed his champion behind the ball, but this is largely to evade taggers and to maximise run out of defence; certainly, he isn't being hidden or protected.
Akermanis lined up in the forward line and seldom strayed far from goal. He did not enter the midfield or push up the ground at any stage and had zero impact. His ugly 250th game was abruptly terminated by an apparent hamstring in the opening minutes of the last quarter.
Granted, he might have been underdone, given his pre-season hamstring troubles, but watching Aka last night, one was reminded that he has not been a bona fide midfielder for some time. It appears that whereas McLeod still owns that turbocharge in his legs, Akermanis has surrendered some zip.

Former Richmond coach Danny Frawley observed last night that the Lions might have benefited from Aka's exile, when he separated from the club with eight games left in the season, because it concealed his waning influence. "The best thing they did was to hide him away," Frawley said.
Not that Akermanis deserves to be scapegoated for the Bulldogs' crash because the failure was collective, and there were few Dogs who won their position.
Last night contained numerous reminders of how this game can be turned upside down, for individuals and teams, in a matter of six sleeps.
Brad Johnson's eight goals, and his — not undeserved — rating as the AFL's premier middleweight and pound-for-pound champion counted for zilch when he confronted Craig's defensive formation. Forced to chase kicks up the ground, where is he is less potent, Johnson did not kick a goal until the same moment in the last quarter when Akermanis hobbled off.
Scott West had numerous possessions, as usual, but the hurt factor was minimal. His 30-plus were much less damaging than the similar numbers posted by Adelaide's Edwards, McLeod and Simon Goodwin.
But if Johnson failed to reach his par, Lindsay Gilbee found water and the bunker and had a quadruple bogey; it's doubtful he has ever played worse. A succession of opponents torched Gilbee, who was outpointed in contests by Scott Stevens, Nathan Bock and Matthew Bode.
Gilbee made his name behind the ball, where his foot skills and speed are well utilised, but he remains suspect as a man-on-man competitor. Craig's plan of kicking to Gilbee's opponents also limited his capacity to hurt the Crows on the rebound.
Destroyed by Scott Lucas seven days earlier, Stevens surely has not played a better game than his three goal, 13-mark effort last night. Yes, we're talking about Scott Stevens, not Robert Shirley.

[southerncross]

Fairly chilling account of what happened last night. I found it interesting that they focused on getting the ball to Gilbee opponent which is an old basketball type trick that clubs used to employ against Andrew Gaze. The could have employed a tag against him but really just made him play defence against a taller opponent

[southerncross]

Crows run rampant over Eade's undersized defence
(http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21525180%255E19742,00.html)

SOMEHOW, on the Christian day of enlightenment, Rodney Eade found himself a nice little black hole at the MCG.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5442819,00.jpg

That void was his defence without Brian Harris and Chris Grant. It is small and it was monstered by the Adelaide Crows.
Scott Stevens is 194cm. He took 13 marks and kicked three goals.
Nathan Bock is 193cm. He took nine marks and kicked four goals.
Ian Perrie is 193cm. He took six marks and kicked two goals.
Scott Welsh is a midget by a comparison. He is 188cm, took seven marks and kicked four goals.
Collectively, they kicked 13 of the team's 16 goals and hauled in 35 marks against Dale Morris (190cm), Ryan Hargrave (190cm), Lindsay Gilbee (180cm) and the lightly-framed Cameron Wight (200cm).
The stats say Morris had five kicked on him, Gilbee three (which is debatable), Wight two and Hargrave one.
The two remaining goals are up for grabs, but the culprit(s) know who they are.
The Crows' tactics were sound. Win the hard ball, which they did. Pressure the Bulldogs' midfield, which they did. Get it and kick it long to the big blokes, which they did.
The Bulldogs' backline has taken the rap here but it's not altogether their fault.
The Bulldogs' midfield should also apologise today.
Andrew McLeod played off half-back, Simon Goodwin and Tyson Edwards around the middle, and the three of them had 97 touches. Chris Knights, Brent Reilly and Scott Thompson shared another 76.
We're not saying every one of them was game-breaking, but the ease with which they collected the ball and the lack of pressure on them when they got rid of it, embarrassed Eade's men.
Forget the final score. The Crows were up 62 points early in the last quarter and the Doggies kicked the last four, which did little but improve Supercoach stats.
Perhaps it was a bad day at the office for Eade and Co.
Perhaps they were starting to believe their own publicity.
They were dismantled by a well-organised Adelaide, which has made a habit of reminding the Bulldogs that football is not all about coast-to-coast goals and fancy footwork with the Sherrin.
They are the team that irks the Bulldogs.
Adelaide, disciplined and talented -- and a preliminary finalist for the past two years -- has won six of the past eight encounters against the Bulldogs, including a 77-point thrashing in Round 5 last year.
The Crows devastated the Bulldogs with midfield pressure and hard running and served the ball to their forwards on a platter.
And they will only get better.
They have Mark Ricciuto, Ken McGregor and Brett Burton to return.
The Bulldogs suffered a huge loss when Jason Akermanis tore his hamstring in the first minute of the last quarter.
He'd had seven touches by then, which matched his seven-tackle effort in the second quarter.
The Bulldogs out-tackled the Crows 36-20 in that term. It sounds great, but coaches have said that means only one thing: you haven't got the ball.
Of more concern to Eade, as he prepares for St Kilda next week, is righting the wrongs that afflicted his team last night: a lack of accountability and hard work, poor disposal and decision-making.
You could point the finger at the best of them - Gilbee, Ryan Griffen, Daniel Giansiracusa, Brad Johnson early and Adam Cooney - but they'll be right, they are quality players.
So is Harris, who returns this week from suspension.
Harris can have bad days but he has spirit and a biggish body. And Eade could have done with him last night.

[southerncross]

I went to the footy last night with a mate who lived in the US for a number of years and is right into his Ice Hockey. The way that Craig bunched everything up and didn't allow us to run and carry the ball my mate described as some thing that happens in Ice Hockey. When the puck carrier is always facing three defenders and can't get on the fast break you typically cannot muster enough scoring opportunities.

The Crows seemed to keep running back and provided more players at a contest than us last night. What was particularly impressive was that the ran back as hard to help their team mates as they ran forward to create opportunities.

We have a lot to learn from last nights game.

[southerncross]

Adelaide gives Eade the horrors (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21524004-2722,00.html)


RODNEY EADE sat in the coaches' box and roared his terrible roar and gnashed his terrible teeth and rolled his terrible eyes.

Only in the most vivid imagination of children's authors could a story line have been construed for the Western Bulldogs to play so badly; to go from wild things to mild things in seven days. From where Eade sat, however, it did no good to pound the desk in fury or smash the phone. All he could do was shuffle his players around on the magnetic board and, ever so quietly, admire the ability of Adelaide to make even the best drilled and most highly skilled football teams appear incompetent.
To come up against the Crows in this kind of mood is to imagine yourself as an AFL version of Michael Douglas in Falling Down, where everything and everyone conspires to slowly do your block in, tackle by tackle, kick by kick.
The Crows were absurdly undermanned for this match and Eade had a glut of riches to pick his team from and yet Adelaide beat the Western Bulldogs 16.14 (110) to 11.6 (72) at the MCG.
But one thing Adelaide do better than any team in the competition is play to a plan. Last night, the plan was simple. Every time a Bulldog started to run, Adelaide would snap the leash. Any time a Bulldog thought about taking the game on, he'd have Crows in his face. This was an unrelenting, full-court press which covered every square metre of the ground.
The full effect was not immediate. In the first quarter, the Bulldogs made more of their scoring opportunities and were well in the game. In the second quarter, poor Adelaide finishing kept the Bulldogs in a contest that was fast slipping from their grasp.
By the third term, however, all pretence was forgotten. Adelaide kicked seven goals, the Bulldogs not one. It was officially a rout.
To watch the game from where Eade sat was to see a disciplined football team. The pity is that it wasn't his. Too often in the modern game, players are allowed to run unchecked out of defence while their opponents retreat to their own half.
In this game, Adelaide hustled and harangued the Bulldogs' backmen to distraction.
The Crows' treatment of Lindsay Gilbee, in particular, though brutal was a thing of footballing beauty.
Gilbee is one of the best kicks in the game and a key mover for the Bulldogs. So often against Geelong a week earlier, the Bulldogs' best attacking moves began from the boot of Gilbee.
Adelaide coach Neil Craig appreciated this and instructed every forward, when required, to take Gilbee back to the goal square.
The frustration for Gilbee was soon evident in his failure to influence the play and inability to use the ball with his usual poise and purpose.
The first goal following the main break was kicked by Scott Stevens after he led Gilbee to the ball. A poor kick-in from Gilbee to Jordan McMahon began another trouble-prone offensive, with Nathan van Berlo on the end of another lightning Adelaide rebound. By the end of his night, Gilbee had conceded goals to three direct opponents.
The point of this is not to pillory Gilbee, who was one of the best players for the Bulldogs against Geelong. Rather, it is to show how even the most talented Bulldogs lost their way under Adelaide's unrelenting pressure.
Whatever else happens this season, it is unlikely you will see Gilbee missing targets by foot, Adam Cooney firing off a brain-snap handball to a clutch of Crows in the centre of the ground and Ryan Griffen dropping the simplest of chest marks, all in the one quarter of football.
To cap it off, Jason Akermanis limped to the bench with an injured hamstring to end his 250th senior game and second for his new club.
If Akermanis was feeling tight in the legs before his hammy went, it might have something to do with the nine tackles he was forced to apply - seven in the second quarter alone - as the Adelaide midfield took control.
The usual suspects were at the pointy end of the Adelaide stats sheet, with Andrew McLeod, Simon Goodwin and Tyson Edwards the three leading possession-winners. A more promising sign for Craig was the return from his unheralded forward line, with Scott Welsh, Stevens, Nathan Bock and Perrie combining to exploit the Bulldogs' lack of height in defence. Between them, they kicked 13 of Adelaide's 16 goals.
The all-important postscript will be written in the Adelaide medical rooms, where Graham Johncock was treated last night for a serious injury to his right ankle. Brett Burton is expected to return for Saturday's Showdown against Port Adelaide but Ken McGregor is still weeks away and there is no telling when Mark Ricciuto will play.
The Bulldogs next play St Kilda and Eade will be hoping his team can play like wild things once more. On this night, they may as well have stayed in their rooms.

[southerncross]

The full-court press that the article from the Australian highlights is probably the best analogy I have read so far.

[dog town]

I dont think its panic stations by any means but it is dissapointing that we haven't found a way around the same tactic that the crows used against us early last season. This game was pretty much a carbon copy of round 5 last season.

The crows played whats called a midfield press which is only a few years old in the game. It is essentially a midfield flood where you play with high half forwards and push numbers into the midfield to create a sort of wall (think round 1 versus pies in 2005 as our best example of it). We have been playing a style where we run the ball through the midfield but the way they closed up the midfield made it hard to run and draw players. I thought we should have gone longer out of half back or through the middle even if it meant kicking to the odd 2 on 1 but I was not at the game so couldn't see what sort of options our players were being given coming forward. Eade would have known the crows would play like this as it is pretty much the thing they do best so in a way he wasn't really out coached in that he wouldn't have been surprised or caught napping but just couldn't get the players to execute a way around it. The flip side of the way the crows played is that it makes alot of space in their forward line and meant that they always had forwards who were one out. It is a style that has troubled us in the past.

Couple the fact that they had a brilliant game plan with the fact that we were well off our game in terms of intesnity and sharpness (missed some easy passes and dropped easy marks) and it is no shock to me that we were well beaten considering that the crows are an awesome side. I suppose the most concerning thing is that we were off our own game. The crows were always going to have a real pop at us and surely the players knew they were going to be in for a massive test. The only positive to really come out of it is that we cant play much worse and we will learn an enormous amount from that game.

You almost have to be prepared to take them on at their own game and scrap out a win against them. It might seem a big ask to have to match them for tackling and strength over the ball but it is how we managed to beat them last season. We didn't want to do it the hard way last night and we paid the price.

Wight- Thought he was good but not in the votes. Was one of the only guys who was clearly switched on from the start. Held his man pretty well and was very aggressive with his tackling.

Morris- Needs 2 or 3 games put into him. Well short of a gallop. His positioning was not great and he got turned around more than once.

Gilbee- I just think the problem was how many times they got him one out and that goes for all our defenders.

Mcmahon- Endeavour was good but made some errors both attacking and defensively.

Darcy- I saw some good signs when he was in the ruck. Will be very valuable when he can ruck more consistently because of the way he can take possesion and then handball to guys in space. Will give us some pretty clean take aways.

Griffen- Should have been played behind the ball earlier I thought. Tried to lift us early in the third but it was to late.

Power- Was pretty useful early.

Johnson- Just didn't get any kind of service.

[Raw Toast]

Good report DT.

A couple of things to add from being at the (v awful) game.

Agree that intensity was down. We also lost confidence v quickly which is a bit of a concern. Also seemed to be trying to do too much. I think the players knew the theory of how Eade wants to break down that mid-field press - run at them, force them to come to you and then handball off - but you are right that the execution was v poor. Often the handpass was given too early which meant they hadn't had to break their structure and come out to us and as a result we didn't yet have good handpass options. At other times a long option was available (eg Darcy close to goal) but we refused to bomb it long (Darcy didn't have one ball kicked to him in the forward line all night I reckon which was just dumb). And we tried too hard to create when often that meant ignoring the first option. The result was lots of dumb footy and an awful game. Be interesting to see how many bounces we had, I think it would be well under average. We needed to keep running with the ball imo and then if they didn't come either bounce and keep going, or kick it over the top to a forward option.

V disappointing that we virtually never bombed long with initiative, only when we'd run to the wrong places and without looking up at all, which meant the ball was simply cut off by one of many crows.

Also revealed the main weakness of Gilbee and other height-and weight-challenged defenders (which is all of them when Harris and Grant are out) - they struggle to spoil when running back with their player towards goal. Nathan Ablett had easily out-marked Gilbee once against the cats when he managed to get behind Gilbee, and the Crows smashed us by drawing their forwards up, and then running them back into space. This also hindered Wight, who I reckon was one of our few shining lights, because it turns things more into an issue of strength and it's hard to hold off and then jump in with the spoil. This was imo how the Crows got most of their goals - not from centre clearences (where we did get smashed) but from turnovers and defence when we couldn't stop their run or clog their forward line.

Also, the Crows just out-ran us again. Clearly wanted it more, and it was v embarrasing at the end when we refused or simply couldn't man up effectively to force them to kick to a contest.

Agree with GvGjrn that Eade had a poor game. Griffen wasn't creating an impact in the middle at all and still seems a bit underdone. He should've been moved back early, and is one of our possible defenders who has the body to cope with running back with his opponent to goal. Also could have given us a forward option to bomb it to when we had to use Darcy in the ruck.

As well as not shifting McDougall back until it was way too late, Eade never played McDougall in the ruck which surprised me as Minson was being slaughtered and this would have allowed Darcy to spend more time up forward (while we weren't kicking it to him, surely Eade could have demanded that we did?). McMahon was only moved into the middle v late, when I think he could've sparked us earlier. McMahon also offered something as a forward against the Crows last year.

I think Minson was completely outspsyched by Hudson who probably smashed him as a kid when he was first at Werribee (I know Hudson kept Minson in the reserves and Will credited his being picked up by Adelaide as a major factor in his subsequent development). Disappointed that he didn't impose his physicality on Hudson and really hope he learns something from this.

Johnson's decision-making was awful when he moved into the midfield. Ignored the first option and kept on getting himself into trouble.

Love McMahon's run, but would like him to play himself into the game before taking major risks (eg wait 5 minutes) as he often seems to miss his first big kick or two I reckon.

Robbins seemed a bit lost and our forwards were pretty tentative.

Eagle did create some good run but his lack of a right foot caught him out a few times and was one of the key offenders of refusing to kick it long for Darcy to contest.

Higgins made me briefly happy. Kept trying, his first goal was a real beauty. Just a pity he didn't nail his shot on half time. One of only a very few who could hold his head up high.

[dog town]

Good report DT.

A couple of things to add from being at the (v awful) game.

Agree that intensity was down. We also lost confidence v quickly which is a bit of a concern. Also seemed to be trying to do too much. I think the players knew the theory of how Eade wants to break down that mid-field press - run at them, force them to come to you and then handball off - but you are right that the execution was v poor. Often the handpass was given too early which meant they hadn't had to break their structure and come out to us and as a result we didn't yet have good handpass options. At other times a long option was available (eg Darcy close to goal) but we refused to bomb it long (Darcy didn't have one ball kicked to him in the forward line all night I reckon which was just dumb). And we tried too hard to create when often that meant ignoring the first option. The result was lots of dumb footy and an awful game. Be interesting to see how many bounces we had, I think it would be well under average. We needed to keep running with the ball imo and then if they didn't come either bounce and keep going, or kick it over the top to a forward option.

V disappointing that we virtually never bombed long with initiative, only when we'd run to the wrong places and without looking up at all, which meant the ball was simply cut off by one of many crows.

Also revealed the main weakness of Gilbee and other height-and weight-challenged defenders (which is all of them when Harris and Grant are out) - they struggle to spoil when running back with their player towards goal. Nathan Ablett had easily out-marked Gilbee once against the cats when he managed to get behind Gilbee, and the Crows smashed us by drawing their forwards up, and then running them back into space. This also hindered Wight, who I reckon was one of our few shining lights, because it turns things more into an issue of strength and it's hard to hold off and then jump in with the spoil. This was imo how the Crows got most of their goals - not from centre clearences (where we did get smashed) but from turnovers and defence when we couldn't stop their run or clog their forward line.

Also, the Crows just out-ran us again. Clearly wanted it more, and it was v embarrasing at the end when we refused or simply couldn't man up effectively to force them to kick to a contest.

Agree with GvGjrn that Eade had a poor game. Griffen wasn't creating an impact in the middle at all and still seems a bit underdone. He should've been moved back early, and is one of our possible defenders who has the body to cope with running back with his opponent to goal. Also could have given us a forward option to bomb it to when we had to use Darcy in the ruck.

As well as not shifting McDougall back until it was way too late, Eade never played McDougall in the ruck which surprised me as Minson was being slaughtered and this would have allowed Darcy to spend more time up forward (while we weren't kicking it to him, surely Eade could have demanded that we did?). McMahon was only moved into the middle v late, when I think he could've sparked us earlier. McMahon also offered something as a forward against the Crows last year.

I think Minson was completely outspsyched by Hudson who probably smashed him as a kid when he was first at Werribee (I know Hudson kept Minson in the reserves and Will credited his being picked up by Adelaide as a major factor in his subsequent development). Disappointed that he didn't impose his physicality on Hudson and really hope he learns something from this.

Johnson's decision-making was awful when he moved into the midfield. Ignored the first option and kept on getting himself into trouble.

Love McMahon's run, but would like him to play himself into the game before taking major risks (eg wait 5 minutes) as he often seems to miss his first big kick or two I reckon.

Robbins seemed a bit lost and our forwards were pretty tentative.

Eagle did create some good run but his lack of a right foot caught him out a few times and was one of the key offenders of refusing to kick it long for Darcy to contest.

Higgins made me briefly happy. Kept trying, his first goal was a real beauty. Just a pity he didn't nail his shot on half time. One of only a very few who could hold his head up high.
Johnson seemed to almost try to hard to lift us when he went into the midfield.

Spot on regarding our defenders struggling when running back towards the crows goal. Morris in particular got turned around more than I have ever seen him.

[Raw Toast]

Johnson seemed to almost try to hard to lift us when he went into the midfield.

Yep. I think quite a few of our midfielders tried too hard to create something (when they had the ball that is, not sure about their efforts when they didn't have it). Meant that instead of doing the simple things well, eg giving off to the first good option, they ran into trouble or missed a difficult target (by hand or foot) which must have been pretty deflating for all involved (it certainly made for frustrating viewing).


Spot on regarding our defenders struggling when running back towards the crows goal. Morris in particular got turned around more than I have ever seen him.

I know Carey says forwards have the greatest advantage in this situation. Harris will help, as will Grant and maybe even Williams at some stage. But as usual, the biggest problem was the freedom they had moving the ball quickly forward.

[Dry Rot]

Swans also play a midfield press, with forwards then running into plenty of space. And we haven't been able to beat them either.

[mjp]

Morris has a technique issue when his player gets behind him - turns his body too much towards the player, causing him to lose track of the flight of the ball.

The coaches will fix this.

[Dry Rot]

Can someone please explain how the Crows could so tightly man-up on us that we were always under pressure, yet when there was a turnover half their side seemed free?

[Sockeye Salmon]

What I was a little perplexed about was why was McDougall not placed in the backline in the first 3 quarters, poor Gilbee had a bag kicked on him and clearly was struggling against the height factor. I realise he always plays above his height but today he was absolutely mauled.

I earbashed Cyberdoggie and Ernie Sigley about this from about the 2nd quarter.

Gilbee gets away with playing on bigger opponents because he gets help from the bigger guys. Craig not only sent Gilbee's opponent to the goal line but also took Cam Wight's opponent wide to the HFF. Hargrave and Morris were both outsized and had enough to worry about without covering for Lindsay as well.

[southerncross]

Gilbee gets away with playing on bigger opponents because he gets help from the bigger guys. Craig not only sent Gilbee's opponent to the goal line but also took Cam Wight's opponent wide to the HFF. Hargrave and Morris were both outsized and had enough to worry about without covering for Lindsay as well.

It will be most interesting to see if other teams can exploit this to the same level. Harris back will help but Eade will need to have other options.

[alwaysadog]

Can someone please explain how the Crows could so tightly man-up on us that we were always under pressure, yet when there was a turnover half their side seemed free?

It happens frequently when you are drunk on your own bath water.

You forget that you have to do more than turn up.

I hope it is a very salutory lesson, and one we don't need to learn again for a very long while.

Who was it said that the difference between the top and the bottom side was very little, just the distance between the player's ears.

[alwaysadog]

Morris has a technique issue when his player gets behind him - turns his body too much towards the player, causing him to lose track of the flight of the ball.

The coaches will fix this.

It would appear that a few teams have done their homework on him and it will be interesting to see how he responds. He has the ability and determination to take his game up a notch I hope we have the coaching infrastructure to get him there.

[alwaysadog]

but Eade will need to have other options.

From here it will be especially important that we see the flexibility that Eade talked about because we are obviously now considered dangerous enough for oppositions to spend the time and effort to work us out. Eade's motto is never become predictable change what you're doing before the opposition work you out.

Well I didn't see any signs of this. In fact in the last 1/4 we went back to last year. Power who had done well to HF and Grif who hadn't to HB. If that's all we had it's shades of the eraly 90s all over again.

I just might be working up to a Blog about that time, the similarities are so strikingly similar to this point in time.

[Go_Dogs]

Can someone please explain how the Crows could so tightly man-up on us that we were always under pressure, yet when there was a turnover half their side seemed free?

Workrate, plain and simple. Our guys didn't work anywhere near as hard as the Crows. They have a game plan that kills us time and time again, if we are not at 100% they crush us. Too much pressure on the ball carrier, too tall in the forward line, and some very good clearance players - McLeod, Goodwin and Edwards.

Basically, I felt we just didn't work anywhere near as hard as we had to.

[Raw Toast]

Can someone please explain how the Crows could so tightly man-up on us that we were always under pressure, yet when there was a turnover half their side seemed free?

I think DT has explained it pretty well already but I'll have a go.

The crows put extra numbers in the midfield by having their half-forward line flood back into the centre of the ground. We tried to beat this clog by running in numbers and hand-passing off to free players. This meant many of our defenders and midfielders were running with the ball and ahead of it, trying to create an option, into areas that Adelaide already had clogged. When we turned it over lots of our midfielders and defenders were ahead of the ball or at least ahead of their opponents, which meant they had free players going the other way.

Heard Chris Bond on the radio yesterday saying the clear instruction during the game was to kick long, but that the players didn't do it. Sounds fairly right to me, as we often seemed to break a line or two of their players (the one's who were then free when we turned over the ball), but then looked to hand-pass it off, rather than to kick long over the rest of them into the forward line. Might have also been an issue with the forward line not demanding the ball or providing leading options.

Agree with McMahon#23 that workrate was also an issue, as was intensity, but Adelaide's tactics had the advantages of pressuring us into risks we didn't handle and opening up their forward line.

[LostDoggy]

The game on Sunday reminded me so much of the 2nd game v Adelaide at the MCG late last year. At one stage in last years game Adelaide looked like they were going to run away with it.
Then late in the 2nd quarter Adelaide stopped. Not sure coaching wise what happened, we possibly went man on man or flooded. They couldn't link up. I remember Rutten and/or Bock deep in defence just kicking back and sidewards continually going no where until they stuffed it up.
Not sure why it didn't happen this time.

[LostDoggy]

That reminds me last time Rutten went forward, this time Bock went forward.
Craig really trys to exploit our lack of defensive talls.
The more I think about it the more I think our players just didn't excute our plan. We were probably more under manned and under pressure late last season but did a better job.

[bornadog]

I think DT has explained it pretty well already but I'll have a go.

The crows put extra numbers in the midfield by having their half-forward line flood back into the centre of the ground. We tried to beat this clog by running in numbers and hand-passing off to free players. This meant many of our defenders and midfielders were running with the ball and ahead of it, trying to create an option, into areas that Adelaide already had clogged. When we turned it over lots of our midfielders and defenders were ahead of the ball or at least ahead of their opponents, which meant they had free players going the other way.

Heard Chris Bond on the radio yesterday saying the clear instruction during the game was to kick long, but that the players didn't do it. Sounds fairly right to me, as we often seemed to break a line or two of their players (the one's who were then free when we turned over the ball), but then looked to hand-pass it off, rather than to kick long over the rest of them into the forward line. Might have also been an issue with the forward line not demanding the ball or providing leading options.

Agree with McMahon#23 that workrate was also an issue, as was intensity, but Adelaide's tactics had the advantages of pressuring us into risks we didn't handle and opening up their forward line.

If you look back at the last four games against the Crows (including Sunday), Craig has done this to us everytime. The difference in last years game was we were able to break free in the last quarter, when they had a lapse in execujting their game plan.

[bornadog]

Some interesting Statistics:

Western Bulldogs-------------Attribute--------------------Adelaide
186.7 ...............................Height (cm)........................186.8
85.8..................................Weight (kg)..........................86.3
24.7.....................................Age (yr)............................25.5
108.6.................................Games................. ..............100.

[Go_Dogs]

The game on Sunday reminded me so much of the 2nd game v Adelaide at the MCG late last year. At one stage in last years game Adelaide looked like they were going to run away with it.
Then late in the 2nd quarter Adelaide stopped. Not sure coaching wise what happened, we possibly went man on man or flooded. They couldn't link up. I remember Rutten and/or Bock deep in defence just kicking back and sidewards continually going no where until they stuffed it up.
Not sure why it didn't happen this time.

This was because we pressured the ball carrier, closed down their space and didn't allow them all the time in the world to make a decision on where to enter the F50 from. We didn't do anywhere near enough of this on the weekend. We had more tackles because we were consistently second to the ball, and didn't have enough numbers around each contest to provide enough pressure. They break one or 2 tackles and there away, where as our guys would have to break 1 tackle, and then have about 4 Crows and 1 Bulldog within range of a handball, how we had so little numbers around the ball at times was very frustrating.

[dog town]

If you look back at the last four games against the Crows (including Sunday), Craig has done this to us everytime. The difference in last years game was we were able to break free in the last quarter, when they had a lapse in execujting their game plan.
I heard Grant Thomas talking about it on radio and he said we absolutely hate teams playing that style against us and he said that he used it to good effect against us with Stkilda as well.

[alwaysadog]

I heard Grant Thomas talking about it on radio and he said we absolutely hate teams playing that style against us and he said that he used it to good effect against us with Stkilda as well.

GT like Wallsie is a much better coach by having given up the caper. Pontification and performance are entirely different beasts.

[alwaysadog]

I think DT has explained it pretty well already but I'll have a go.

The crows put extra numbers in the midfield by having their half-forward line flood back into the centre of the ground. We tried to beat this clog by running in numbers and hand-passing off to free players. This meant many of our defenders and midfielders were running with the ball and ahead of it, trying to create an option, into areas that Adelaide already had clogged. When we turned it over lots of our midfielders and defenders were ahead of the ball or at least ahead of their opponents, which meant they had free players going the other way.

Heard Chris Bond on the radio yesterday saying the clear instruction during the game was to kick long, but that the players didn't do it. Sounds fairly right to me, as we often seemed to break a line or two of their players (the one's who were then free when we turned over the ball), but then looked to hand-pass it off, rather than to kick long over the rest of them into the forward line. Might have also been an issue with the forward line not demanding the ball or providing leading options.

Agree with McMahon#23 that workrate was also an issue, as was intensity, but Adelaide's tactics had the advantages of pressuring us into risks we didn't handle and opening up their forward line.


Absolutely excellent analysis of what went wrong. The most important question that emerges is why we fell for the sucker punches and why we failed to follow coaching instructions.

As this represents the first time that Eade or any of the coaching panel have bagged the players I'm intrigued. Does it mean that now we have a larger number of coaches the gap between the leaders and the led has got too great or is it just a moment's folly?

[Bulldog Revolution]

I dont think its panic stations by any means but it is dissapointing that we haven't found a way around the same tactic that the crows used against us early last season. This game was pretty much a carbon copy of round 5 last season.

The crows played whats called a midfield press which is only a few years old in the game. It is essentially a midfield flood where you play with high half forwards and push numbers into the midfield to create a sort of wall (think round 1 versus pies in 2005 as our best example of it). We have been playing a style where we run the ball through the midfield but the way they closed up the midfield made it hard to run and draw players. I thought we should have gone longer out of half back or through the middle even if it meant kicking to the odd 2 on 1 but I was not at the game so couldn't see what sort of options our players were being given coming forward. Eade would have known the crows would play like this as it is pretty much the thing they do best so in a way he wasn't really out coached in that he wouldn't have been surprised or caught napping but just couldn't get the players to execute a way around it. The flip side of the way the crows played is that it makes alot of space in their forward line and meant that they always had forwards who were one out. It is a style that has troubled us in the past.

Couple the fact that they had a brilliant game plan with the fact that we were well off our game in terms of intesnity and sharpness (missed some easy passes and dropped easy marks) and it is no shock to me that we were well beaten considering that the crows are an awesome side. I suppose the most concerning thing is that we were off our own game. The crows were always going to have a real pop at us and surely the players knew they were going to be in for a massive test. The only positive to really come out of it is that we cant play much worse and we will learn an enormous amount from that game.

You almost have to be prepared to take them on at their own game and scrap out a win against them. It might seem a big ask to have to match them for tackling and strength over the ball but it is how we managed to beat them last season. We didn't want to do it the hard way last night and we paid the price.

Wight- Thought he was good but not in the votes. Was one of the only guys who was clearly switched on from the start. Held his man pretty well and was very aggressive with his tackling.

Morris- Needs 2 or 3 games put into him. Well short of a gallop. His positioning was not great and he got turned around more than once.

Gilbee- I just think the problem was how many times they got him one out and that goes for all our defenders.

Mcmahon- Endeavour was good but made some errors both attacking and defensively.

Darcy- I saw some good signs when he was in the ruck. Will be very valuable when he can ruck more consistently because of the way he can take possesion and then handball to guys in space. Will give us some pretty clean take aways.

Griffen- Should have been played behind the ball earlier I thought. Tried to lift us early in the third but it was to late.

Power- Was pretty useful early.

Johnson- Just didn't get any kind of service.

excellent post, fascinating how basketball like tactics continue to evolve in the game, pressuring the ball carrier and forcing the opposition where you want them to go, these are standard basketball approaches to defending. Our players inability to read and react to the crows tactics suggests to me that far more work needs to be done on executing against this type of game plan. The coaching staff have to keep drilling this, because it is very likely we will frequently see this type of approach trying to isolate our key defenders whilst blocking up space midfield.

i think the interesting switch in the second half was how the crows were completely happy to chip the ball around and milk the clock, that was the difference I noticed in the second half,

geelong supporters booed us for doing it in round 1, but without knowing that much about AFL tactics, I believe it is completely up to the team without the ball to stop it by matching up. I guess this was Adelaide attempting to again change us into a game plan they felt could exploit us, but it also ran enough time off the clock that we never really had a chance to win the game - IMO the game was over midway through the 2nd quarter

[Bulldog Revolution]

Good report DT.

A couple of things to add from being at the (v awful) game.

Agree that intensity was down.

Also, the Crows just out-ran us again. Clearly wanted it more, and it was v embarrasing at the end when we refused or simply couldn't man up effectively to force them to kick to a contest.

McMahon was only moved into the middle v late, when I think he could've sparked us earlier.

Johnson's decision-making was awful when he moved into the midfield. Ignored the first option and kept on getting himself into trouble.



Another great summary Raw Toast - cant believe it took me until this late in the week to find it

The intensity was down, and I just think they expected it to happen, I've got to say I turned up on Easter sunday and just expected us to put in a better showing than that.
The crows intensity and focus was far better than ours.

I also did not think the coaching staff had a good game, however from there perspective it was probably like shuffling the deck chairs on the titanic - we basically did not have a single winner on the ground. McMahons dash was needed on the ball much earlier

A lot of our players have ignored the first option over the opening two rounds, Darcy got himself repeatedly into trouble against Geelong by electing not to handball off to the first option. Johnson tries to spark the team but often it is by trying to do too much - I think he was trying too hard to turn it around by himself.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Absolutely excellent analysis of what went wrong. The most important question that emerges is why we fell for the sucker punches and why we failed to follow coaching instructions.

As this represents the first time that Eade or any of the coaching panel have bagged the players I'm intrigued. Does it mean that now we have a larger number of coaches the gap between the leaders and the led has got too great or is it just a moment's folly?

The bagging of the players was dealt with in the Herald Sun today:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21542689%255E20322,00.html

"Eade said the group understood the context behind him naming senior players down on form at the MCG, a post-game observation wrongly interpreted as criticism by some media.

"What I said was that it's very difficult to win when your better players don't play well," he said.

I think the issue is more about us maturing as a team where we can shut down enough of the opposition players, but also recognise what other teams are doing tactically and execute our offensive game plan.

That said, the time really is now for this group

[alwaysadog]

The bagging of the players was dealt with in the Herald Sun today:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21542689%255E20322,00.html

"Eade said the group understood the context behind him naming senior players down on form at the MCG, a post-game observation wrongly interpreted as criticism by some media.

"What I said was that it's very difficult to win when your better players don't play well," he said.

I think the issue is more about us maturing as a team where we can shut down enough of the opposition players, but also recognise what other teams are doing tactically and execute our offensive game plan.

That said, the time really is now for this group

A good result from a poor and ill considered effort from Eade. Shades of the old Eade emerged when this pressure was on him. Can't afford to let it happen too often or he will lose all he has gained and the players as well.

[Raw Toast]

A good result from a poor and ill considered effort from Eade. Shades of the old Eade emerged when this pressure was on him. Can't afford to let it happen too often or he will lose all he has gained and the players as well.

Not convinced about this aad. Goes back to the discussions initiated by MJP in Feb about Ray Maclean and leadership. Heard 774 commentators speaking today about Melbourne's continued failure to deal with expectations. McClure was going off at them for not demanding enough and made some good points I reckon about them having a problem in their culture. Alves noted with approval the way Eade had named players.

I'm not saying Eade did the right thing, it's an open question for me and I suspect we'll get some answers this season about whether we can stand up to expectation and the team demand enough of each other (tonight might give us some clues). I know Eade seems to have lost at least some of the players at Sydney but I think he's learnt a lot since then.

Murphy wrote a bit about the aftermath of the loss in his Age column this week http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/all-grown-up/2007/04/11/1175971180422.html
Here are some of the key bits:

The team review meeting scheduled for later that morning looms as a possible triple root canal. The meeting is spirited and home truths fly. It is a necessary evil, and while it is a tense half hour you can feel the mood of the whole club lift. By the time we leave the meeting room we all have a bounce back in our step and it feels like a weight has been lifted off our collective backs.

The next day also begins with a dip in the sea, this time at Williamstown instead of Port Melbourne. The water, while still freezing, seems to have warmed a degree or two. Some players believe this to be due to a geographical change from one beach to another. Others believe the water is warmer because the review meeting is not only over, but also that it was positive and their bodies have responded accordingly. Or it could be global warming. It's hard to know.

[GVGjr]

We really played poorly tonight and while last week I think we came up against a very good team that executed a game plan perfectly I can't say the same on tonights effort.

I pose the following questions:

Can we use 'injuries' as an excuse?
Has our game plan become that predictable?
Are certain players letting us down?
Do we have the right balance within the squad with age, experience, size and quality?
Are we too focused on speed?
Is there any chance that the players believed the pre-season hype too much?

It goes without say that Eade need to find the answer to why we are performing so badly quickly.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Can we use 'injuries' as an excuse? No. We barely have any injuries.
Has our game plan become that predictable? It has. It's a real worry. Sides will have taken note over the past two weeks. Play hard accountable football, smother Johnson and clog up space in both the midfield and forward line, and we're indecisive and soft.
Are certain players letting us down? Big time. Ray, Gia, Street, Morris, Hargrave, Eagleton, Cooney, Griffen, Minson, Murphy just to name a few.
Do we have the right balance within the squad with age, experience, size and quality? The age and experience is OK. Quality and size no. We have far too many outside players. West, Cross & Boyd are our only inside midfielders and they aren't (Minus Boyd) big bodied. We're lacking serious KPP quality at both ends, but yes - around clearances/stoppages - the lack of size is contributing to the thrashing.
Are we too focused on speed? IMO we are. What's our Plan B? We're without one. Far too many 'fast, skillful' type of players. They're all the same type of player, basically. We need some legitimate hard nuts in the McLean, Jones, Pickett, Mitchell, Kirk etc. mould. Hahn will help but we can't expect him to carry the side on his shoulders after a knee reco.
Is there any chance that the players believed the pre-season hype too much? Last week, definitely. This week I think it's hit home that they're the hunted and they're finding it difficult to deal with. Complacency appeared to set in last week, so I think there's quite a few who have been sucked into the media hype. IMO they'll find it hard to get out of this form slump too, given an extreme drop of confidence.

[alwaysadog]

We really played poorly tonight and while last week I think we came up against a very good team that executed a game plan perfectly I can't say the same on tonights effort.

I pose the following questions:

Can we use 'injuries' as an excuse?
Has our game plan become that predictable?
Are certain players letting us down?
Do we have the right balance within the squad with age, experience, size and quality?
Are we too focused on speed?
Is there any chance that the players believed the pre-season hype too much?

It goes without say that Eade need to find the answer to why we are performing so badly quickly.

Can we use 'injuries' as an excuse?
Only to the extent that we have a couple on the way back and not performing at their usual standard.

Has our game plan become that predictable?
The last two weeks would suggest that it has, however, our response to the pressure the Saints exerted was not positive and we fumbled a lot. That said we have no capacity to stop oppositions freeing up runners and flankers, no system up forward, are getting thrashed for the hard ball in packs; I don't care what the stats say, and sides now isolate our defenders.

Are certain players letting us down?
Some are in quiet poor form. Gia, Murph and Morris are shadows of their former selves.

Do we have the right balance within the squad with age, experience, size and quality?
Too early to say but I don't think so.

Are we too focused on speed?
At the expense of?

Is there any chance that the players believed the pre-season hype too much?
I suspect they did, but not any longer.

It's not wrist slashing time yet, but I hope Eade is on top of it, and can act positively to restore our competitive edge.

[southerncross]

I am not naive enough to suggest that we weren't going to hit some hurdles and some bumps on the road along the way this season but lets have a look at the three games we have played.

Dogs vs the Cats
We outplayed them for the vast majority of the game. We got the match-ups we wanted and we kept the scoreboard ticking over. Johnson starred in a truly masterful display.
Eade had Thompson measure but the trouble is we only won by 20 points. I think we controlled the game for nearly 70% of match but we couldn't finish it off. In summary we had one player who kicked 8 for us and we controlled 65% of the game and yet we couldn't rack up a big win.
Dogs vs Crows
The scoreboard flatters us in a big way because we were really thrashed but a very disciplined team who exploited our small defensive line up and shut down our midfield. The forward line just didn't work.
If it wasn't for a few goals we got at the end it should have been a 50 or 60 point loss.
Dogs vs Saints
We got off to a slow start and just couldn't keep pace with the Saints. We couldn't exploit their lack of tall defenders and yet their talls exploited ours even with the return of Harris.

Even against an undermanned Lions outfit in the NAB cup there were signs that all was not right.

Yes it is not like we were going to win every game but at the very least we should be far more competitive than what we are displaying at the moment.

[bulldogtragic]

While our first final last year was a belter of a game:

WCE mauled us. Break.

A 3rd string Sydney team nearly beat us, then a very young lions team kicked us.

We beat Geelong by 4 goals who played poorly.

Adelaide should have won by 90 points honestly.

Then the Saints dish us another ass reaming.


I dont know whether we're too predictable and have no plan b, whether we believe the hype, or whether we played individually poor games, but i've got a really bad feeling about things now. I'm not jumping and giving up, but some alarm bells are going off now and from the last few games, im not sure if i can turn them off.

If Richmond beat us this week, then we're in strife. But i wouldnt put money on that eventuating.

[dog town]

Flood them back Rodney we dont care what it looks like. Games are being played on the oppositions terms we need to at least level out the playing field.

[alwaysadog]

Yes it is not like we were going to win every game but at the very least we should be far more competitive than what we are displaying at the moment.

I wouldn't write Rodney off just yet and nor am I so worried about the results so far as long as we can turn it around. We certainly have a lot of quality players who appear to be off the boil ATM. The top contenders however, aren't usually up early in the season.

I don't know if we have developed habits that its hard to break or we don't have an alternative approach. FWIW the preseason planning appears to be in chaos. IMHO we have been out thought as much as out played. We are the hunted and need to go back to being the hunters. How to do it is the question I hope the coach is concentrating on.

The two areas that are a real worry to me would be our inability to win the ball at stoppages and the fact that we are unable to generate run because we are constantly being held up at HB until our players upfield are covered.

[alwaysadog]

Not convinced about this aad. Goes back to the discussions initiated by MJP in Feb about Ray Maclean and leadership. Heard 774 commentators speaking today about Melbourne's continued failure to deal with expectations. McClure was going off at them for not demanding enough and made some good points I reckon about them having a problem in their culture. Alves noted with approval the way Eade had named players.

I'm not saying Eade did the right thing, it's an open question for me and I suspect we'll get some answers this season about whether we can stand up to expectation and the team demand enough of each other (tonight might give us some clues). I know Eade seems to have lost at least some of the players at Sydney but I think he's learnt a lot since then.

Murphy wrote a bit about the aftermath of the loss in his Age column this week http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/all-grown-up/2007/04/11/1175971180422.html
Here are some of the key bits:

The team review meeting scheduled for later that morning looms as a possible triple root canal. The meeting is spirited and home truths fly. It is a necessary evil, and while it is a tense half hour you can feel the mood of the whole club lift. By the time we leave the meeting room we all have a bounce back in our step and it feels like a weight has been lifted off our collective backs.

The next day also begins with a dip in the sea, this time at Williamstown instead of Port Melbourne. The water, while still freezing, seems to have warmed a degree or two. Some players believe this to be due to a geographical change from one beach to another. Others believe the water is warmer because the review meeting is not only over, but also that it was positive and their bodies have responded accordingly. Or it could be global warming. It's hard to know.

I accept a lot of what you're saying but IMHO it did not show a coach in control of the situation. Blaming doesn't help. It's not their problem it's ours. Exasperation isn't leadership.

Oh by the way, I used to be a great fan of 774, but I no longer listen. They are just a lot of old men dribbling in their cocoa. I'm thinking of a fund raising effort to buy them the bath chairs and blankets they will need when the weather gets cooler.